DIAGRAMA LINEA DE BALANCE-MÉTODO LBMS

As previously discussed, current federal policy prohibits the disclosure of students’ personally identifiable information without consent in most situations. However, these legal protections are available only to those who have been enrolled in the school, leaving the personal data of the millions who do not enroll in jeopardy of disclosure. Colleges and universities purporting to be members of the sanctuary campus movement must attempt to close the gaps left by FERPA to strengthen their protective capabilities.

Administrators, faculty, and students of sanctuary campuses and their supporters may consider lobbying Congress to demand reform of federal privacy laws, including FERPA. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that lobbying efforts to reform FERPA would prove fruitful for sanctuary campus

proponents, as the Trump administration and the current Congress are unlikely to improve policies granting increased

the prosecution of the students and professors who helped him to continue his life as a freedman).

protections for undocumented immigrants. Considering the efforts of the Executive branch to defund sanctuary cities during the first months of Trump’s presidency, this point is even more evident.

Sanctuary campuses should consider, as a possible alternative measure, reforming their internal data retention policies. As previously discussed, FERPA protections apply only to “students” as defined by 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(6).170

Because of this, immigration officers could potentially

request immigration status information of college applicants who have never been enrolled in the school. Assuming the requests are otherwise lawful, institutions would not be able to use FERPA to deny access or require the consent of

affected individuals before the personal information is released. To counter the potential risks, institutions of higher education should consider the following options: (a) having no information retention policy for students who have not been admitted to their schools, (b) having a specific policy under which only immigration status information is removed from applicant and student records, (c) lowering their data retention periods overall, or (d) adopting new employee training policies for working with and handling subpoenas for sensitive information and immigration law.

Data retention policy regarding applicants. There are

few federal laws that require the retention of student

records, and there are only a few states, Oregon, for example, that have some requirements.171 _{Some state administrative}

regulations permit colleges to destroy any or all portion of a student’s education records as long as it accords with the

170 _{20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(6).}

171 _{There are, for example, federal requirements for the retention} of records for special education students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990). Many institutions of higher education follow the guidelines set by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (“AACRAO”) for best practices in records retention.

school’s established retention policy.172 _{It is not yet clear}

what recording rules apply to applicant data as compared to

student data. Because data retention policies vary amongst

jurisdictions, sanctuary colleges and universities should stay abreast of the applicable data retention policies governing their respective states or localities. By acquainting

themselves with these rules, and not simply relying on generalized recommendations, schools can best formulate retention policies that not only protect their students (as defined under FERPA) but also applicants who do not ultimately matriculate.

Specific policies to remove immigration status from records. Higher education institutions may alter their data

retention policies so that immigration status information is not included in the data retained. Of course, implementation of such a policy should take into consideration any state or federal laws requiring the retention of immigration status information.173 _{Alternatively, colleges could consider}

lowering the retention periods for certain types of data. Many colleges have varying record retention policies for individuals who do not enroll in the school. While some colleges only maintain applicant information for one year, others have much longer retention periods.174 _{The longer}

172 _{The Washington Administrative Code had several sections} permitting the destruction of student education records for specific

institutions as allowed under each school’s policies. This right is subject to a student’s right to request access. See Wash. Admin. Code 516-26-095; Wash. Admin. Code 132D-125-095 (permitting the destruction of education records as defined by Wash. Admin. Code 132D-125-020).

173 _{See, e.g., The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing} Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“PATRIOT Act”), Pub. L. No. 107-56, §115 Stat. 396 (2001).

174 _{Cornell University maintains a record of student education} records (including applications, admissions and enrollments) and denials for one year. Retention of University Records: Policy 4.7, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, https://www.dfa.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/vol4_7.pdf. Columbia University’s retention policy advises a ten-year maintenance of electronic enrollment data for denied applicants and admitted students who do not enroll for ten years. Retention of Student Education Records, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY,

retention policies may place undocumented students at greater risk of detection and deportation if immigration officials gain lawful access to such records. These concerns are now highly important to sanctuary campuses considering President Trump’s Executive Order 13786 requesting

limitations on the Privacy Act.175

Internal employee training. In order to ensure that

school officials are prepared to handle immigration data, institutions should implement targeted training programs, if such programs are not already in place. These trainings should cover, among other measures the school may deem prudent, instructing employees on how to properly respond to requests for student records. In addition, training should instruct employees on best practices for requesting

immigration status information—specifically, whether requesting such information would be appropriate or necessary. Colleges and universities should prioritize training employees and their students on the protections of FERPA and the limitations placed on external requests for student information. By properly instructing students and employees on privacy laws, colleges and universities can be better assured that the rights of their students will be respected internally. Additionally, they should offer

students and employees materials on relevant immigration law with an emphasis on the rights of non-citizens. These materials should, where applicable, include information about how the sanctuary campus movement operates within the boundaries of the law to protect undocumented

individuals on school campuses.

Student_Education_Records.pdf. New York University requires a minimum two-year retention policy for applications of individuals who do not enroll. Schedule “1” – Retention Periods for General Categories of Retainable Records, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY,

https://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/compliance/documents/Retention_Sc hedule.pdf.

175 _{Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,} Exec. Order No. 13,768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799, 8802 (Jan. 25, 2017) (ordering agencies to restrict protections of the Privacy Act to United States citizens and lawful permanent residents).

Finally, colleges and universities wishing to participate in the sanctuary campus movement should implement financial assistance programs to assist undocumented students. Current laws restrict

undocumented students’ access to higher education by prohibiting schools from offering in-state tuition benefits to undocumented students. Federal laws also restrict access to higher education by making undocumented students

ineligible to receive federal financial assistance available to other students. Colleges and universities can enhance their impact by expanding financial programs to help

undocumented students who have difficulty paying for their education. For example, institutions can remove

requirements for social security numbers and citizenship status where not entirely necessary, to be eligible to receive a scholarship. By removing such requirements, institutions would expand financial aid eligibility to students lacking such documentation. Colleges and universities should also make publicly available, comprehensive lists of scholarships available to undocumented students. In addition, colleges should consider establishing financial programs with the specific aim of helping DACA and other undocumented students with immigration related problems. This transparency would assist college applicants who may be deterred due to their ineligibility for federal aid.

2. Declaring Sanctuary Buildings May Not Be the